Among the five headings the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026 group under Key Evaluation Criteria, one tests something narrower and more practical than innovation or risk controls: can this applicant actually run the test safely, and stop it cleanly, whichever way it goes. That heading — Feasibility and Exit Strategy — also carries a standing power that applies regardless of what the applicant proposed.
This piece works through what the heading requires, why the exit plan is assessed at the entry stage rather than left until testing ends, and what the Authority’s power to cap volumes, users and exposure means for a participant already inside the sandbox.
What does “Feasibility and Exit Strategy” test in a sandbox application?
Whether the applicant is operationally ready to run the test, and has planned honestly for both how it ends. The PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026 list three elements under this heading: “Technical and operational readiness, including team expertise. Clear testing parameters. Exit plans (winding down if unsuccessful or transitioning to licensing if successful).” Readiness, scope and exit are treated as three separate things an applicant must show, not one combined narrative.
Why is an exit plan assessed before testing even starts?
Because a sandbox exit plan is a precondition of a complete application, not a document filed once the test is already running. The Guidelines’ Eligibility Criteria section requires every applicant to demonstrate operational readiness that includes “a sandbox exit plan specifying transition to full authorization or orderly wind-down,” alongside a defined testing plan and risk management measures. An application missing this element at submission is incomplete before assessment even reaches the Feasibility and Exit Strategy scoring heading — the Guidelines allow up to two resubmissions for incomplete applications, so the practical effect of a missing exit plan is delay, not automatic rejection, but delay all the same.
What must the exit strategy actually cover, according to Form I?
Form I, the sandbox application form annexed to the Guidelines, breaks the exit and scaling narrative into three distinct written sections under “Exit Strategy & Scaling”:
| Form I section | What it must cover | Suggested length |
|---|---|---|
| Exit / Termination Strategy | Conditions for stopping the test, winding down operations safely, and returning assets to users | ~300 words |
| Transition to Full Deployment / Scaling Up | Steps required for scaling, licensing, and the technological and financial requirements that go with it | ~300 words |
| Communication Plan | How participants are informed — disclosures, duration, termination notices, public communication | ~300–400 words |
Read together, these three sections are where the general “exit plan” language from the eligibility criteria gets turned into specific, checkable commitments: how a wind-down actually returns customer virtual assets, what licensing steps follow a successful test, and how users are told either way.
Does the exit plan have to cover both success and failure?
Yes, explicitly. The Feasibility and Exit Strategy heading states the exit plan must cover “winding down if unsuccessful or transitioning to licensing if successful.” In practice, an application describing only how it would transition to a full licence after a successful test — without a corresponding plan for orderly wind-down and asset return if the test fails — has not met this element as the Guidelines describe it. Our reading is that both branches need equal, specific treatment; a one-line reference to “wind-down as required” alongside three paragraphs on scaling ambitions is likely to read as unbalanced against this criterion.
Can PVARA cap transaction volumes, user numbers or exposure during a sandbox test?
Yes. Immediately after the exit-plan requirement, the Guidelines add a standing power: “The Authority may impose limits on transaction volumes, user numbers, or exposure on a case-to-case basis.” This sits under the Feasibility and Exit Strategy heading itself, which is why it belongs alongside the exit-planning discussion rather than as a separate rule. The power is case-by-case rather than a published general schedule — the Guidelines do not set a default cap that applies to every participant, so an applicant should not assume any particular volume or user ceiling until the Authority sets one for that specific test.
Where does this cap power show up once a participant is inside the sandbox?
In the undertaking every approved participant signs. Annexure-B, the format of undertaking submitted by a regulatory sandbox applicant, requires the participant to agree that it “shall operate within the sandbox as per the parameters set by the Authority.” Read against the Feasibility and Exit Strategy power to cap volumes, users or exposure, this undertaking clause is how that discretionary cap becomes a binding condition of participation rather than a mere possibility mentioned during assessment. A participant that exceeds a volume or user cap the Authority has set has, on this reading, breached the terms it undertook to accept, not merely tested outside its own plan.
What happens if a participant breaches its exit plan or the parameters it was given?
Annexure-B gives the Authority a graduated response. Participants undertake and agree that the Authority “may terminate its participation in the Regulatory Sandbox by giving written notice at least 15 days prior to the termination date, or immediately” in three circumstances: breach of the testing plan, deployment expected to have negative consequences for consumers or overall financial stability (or failure to provide requested information), or public interest. Separately, the Guidelines’ suspension and revocation section gives the Authority power, where it has “possible reasons to believe that the participant has failed to adhere to the details agreed,” to temporarily suspend testing until the matter is clarified, or to withdraw approval entirely with public notice where there is serious consumer detriment. Fifteen days’ notice is the default; the exceptions listed remove that notice period entirely.
How does the exit plan connect to what happens at the end of testing?
The exit plan filed at application stage is not the last word on how a test actually ends — the Authority weighs it against the real results. At the close of testing, the participant files a completion report covering the actual outcomes, and the Authority determines the future course of action at what the Guidelines call the exit stage, taking the completion report and the original testing-phase results together. The exit plan submitted months earlier sets the applicant’s own proposed direction; the completion report and the Authority’s own analysis decide what actually happens next.
What should a sandbox applicant do to satisfy this criterion well?
- Write the wind-down scenario with the same level of specificity as the scaling scenario — named steps, not a single sentence.
- Address asset return concretely: how customer virtual assets and fiat balances are identified, reconciled and returned if the test stops.
- Do not assume an open-ended user base or transaction volume; state the scale the applicant is actually prepared to be limited to if the Authority imposes a cap.
- Draft the communication plan for both outcomes — a termination notice reads very differently from a scaling announcement, and Form I asks for both.
- Treat the exit plan filed with the application as a living commitment, not paperwork — it forms part of the undertaking the participant signs on approval.
Related reading
- PVARA Exchange License: Capital, Rules & Obligations 2026
- PVARA Transfer & Settlement License: Crypto Payments 2026
- PVARA Licensing Process: NOC to Full Licence, Step by Step
- The PVARA Licensing Gold Rush: Pakistan’s Crypto Frontier
- PVARA Custody License: Safeguard Customer Crypto 2026
- goAML Registration for VASPs: Who Registers, and When
- PVARA Management & Investment License: Crypto Funds 2026
About this analysis
This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Feasibility and Exit Strategy heading under Key Evaluation Criteria, the Eligibility Criteria section, Form I (Section C — Exit Strategy & Scaling), and Annexure-B of the PVARA Sandbox Guidelines 2026, read as published. Where the Guidelines leave a threshold or default undefined — including the exact volume or user caps the Authority may impose — that is stated in the text above.
Regulatory positions change and specific requirements should be verified against the current position published by the relevant authority before you act on them. This is information and analysis, not legal advice, and it does not create an advisory relationship. Take professional advice on your own circumstances.
Entering Pakistan's crypto market?
CoinConnect handles market entry, partnerships, PR and launch for exchanges and Web3 companies moving into Pakistan and South Asia.
Visit CoinConnect